Star Wars Battlefront: A concept for a new Galactic Conquest

 We are the dream havers

Yesterday I talked a bit about the curious case of Star Wars Battlefront's Galactic Conquest mode and the fact that it is utterly missing from modern day EA Battlefront. I detailed how important I thought it was to the main package of the series, and explained the variations of the mode throughout the years. But I drew short on how exactly one would go about implementing some form of a Galactic conquest game mode into the new formula of Battlefront game without compromising the new online-first focus. As a simple 'one-to-one' equation only falls short in such a proposition. As such I thought it only fair I give the topic my full attention here so that we may conjure up a decent conceptual prototype, or the building blocks towards one, so that future diatribes on the topic can be somewhat informed. Savvy?

So the problems are thus; Galactic Conquest is a mode built to be best for solo offline players or local co-op. It's a series of battles with strategic planning tools that locks both sides into prolonged conflict until their campaign is complete. We're talking a couple of hours to complete a campaign in the first game and maybe even longer with some of the later iterations, which isn't exactly a feasible time sync for most online players. Then there's the strategic decisions themselves which is unilaterally decided by the player of that army in the original Battlefronts, but the new games have both sides filled with 30-odd real life players, so who gets to decide on picking bonuses or mounting assaults on what planet, and how do you keep the strategic heart feeling alive, in that position? And then there's the idea of rewards that make such a mode appealing to play in the first place instead of the normal 'Instant action' game mode. A troubling conundrum to be sure.

The big one is picking the structure of such a mode, which I think best makes sense as instanced daily competitions run by servers which players can drop in and out of at will. Of course such a proposition has it's issues; how can you pick active hours for the competition that are fair for anyone, what happens if an instance on a server can't find enough players to play and if you can drop in and out at will, presumably with the game picking what side of the battle you fight for each time, how are you going to assume loyalty to your side of the war? The other, more traditional, method would be an extended match that is hosted by a player that can then be driven by active play, but then the question pops up of what happens to this instance of a campaign when the host drops out? (These are a lot of matches, afterall. I don't think many will be able to find the time to fight throughout the whole thing) Or, again, there falls off too many players to play? Does the campaign just suspend itself in limbo?

I think server hosted campaigns make the most sense as they allow players to feel like this concentrated and consequential war machine continues outside of their direct involvement. Clever time zones will have to be selected in order to ensure players all over the world get the chance to play, even if just for a little bit. (I'm thinking about three campaigns a day to test the waters, with that being increased or decreased as demand sees fit.) Picking sides must be done automatically, for the sake of balance, which means that drop in and drop out players made end up inexplicably switching sides. I would toy with the idea of locking players into their chosen side when they join a campaign, but I know that might lead to imbalances in games. Still, I think faction loyalty is important, so I'd at least try that out. (The extreme solution would be to implement trigger states that refuses to allow people to join if their presence would outbalance the match too much, but I just see that being a source of frustration for a lot of players. And if you get told enough you're not allowed to play something through no fault of your own, you're going to stop trying to play it.)

Making strategy decisions is a big part of the Galactic Conquest experience, whether it's deciding which planet to attack next in order to open up the war theatre or picking which bonus to ride into battle with or how to spend unlock credits on specific units for the campaign. These are decisions that need to made from a central authority which is why it works when you have one person controlling the army and why there's a new dynamic to consider when we bring up online games. Typical match-ups in Battlefield give teams the ability to choose where the next map will take place, but this is a utterly inconsequential decision on it's face as serves no higher strategy or prolonged campaign, and even then it's a choice some make begrudgingly. Some people just want to fight, ask them to make informed decisions and it rubs wrong against their play experience. So what is the solution?

I've selected two. The weaker is the group vote wherein big decisions are made through a selection screen the scrolls through three menus; 'Spend Credits', 'pick bonuses' and 'attack where?' which gives the power to the majority rule. This would obviously force decision making where it isn't wanted and be subject to a 'trend towards the grain' mentality that already infects map selection. Alternatively we grant the choice to the top performing players of a match to decide where the shape of the campaign leads next. Decisions will be made in relative secrecy with other players only being noted on the results so as to prevent people feeling like they're being put on the spot and becoming nervous. Players will have the right to forfeit their choice if they don't want to, which will pass that responsibility onto the next in line. This will mean that the most engaged with the match are more likely to know how to shape the war front, and there's a chance for different strategic heads to take the front throughout the whole campaign. An elegant bridging design if I do so say myself.

Finally there's rewards; what will they be and how will they be rewarded? Well the first is typical; you want credits to spend on customisation and cards, of course. But I think it would be super cool if there were exclusive cosmetics to be unlocked by playing and succeeding in this game mode; and in fact I think that Battlefront could tie in a seasonal reward system to really bring the players coming back to this mode time after time. Rewards would also be set to be granted at the end of a campaign depending on how well you do, which would encourage sound strategy and faction loyalty. And similar to World of Tanks, if you leave mid-campaign it won't be until that match wraps up where you'll be gifted those rewards you're seeking. So it's encouraged to come back later and attack that campaign down the line.

These are broad outlines of the systems surrounding a potential Galactic Conquest mode and where it would fit into thr ecosystem of the new game, because mechanically you're just looking at simple instant-action matches strung back-to-back with one another. Let this be the foundation for any arguments about why DICE have no excuse really going all out for Battlefront 3 and restoring this great franchise to the heights it launched with, because there is ever little excuse for another feature light game from the hugely successful series. And if I'm to throw that ever exciting wild card prediction into the mix; I'd say that we're not getting a new game until a new era can be wound in; and seeing that the High Republic has no significant design differences from the Prequel Era (Because Disney is creatively bankrupt) my recommendation is The Old Republic. Let Aspyr lay out the foundations of the next era of Battlefront play, and then let's make those conquests galactic, baby!